MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 107: Line 107:
#{{User|Lcrossmk8}} I don't think we have enough pages of this thing to make it into a separate namespace. Per all.
#{{User|Lcrossmk8}} I don't think we have enough pages of this thing to make it into a separate namespace. Per all.
#{{User|NSY}} Per my comment below and Tucayo.
#{{User|NSY}} Per my comment below and Tucayo.
#{{User|Ghost Jam}} Per all. I see what's trying to be done here, but it seems overly fiddly considering what is being effected, making this extra work for little reward.


====Comments====
====Comments====

Revision as of 23:53, October 24, 2017

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, May 12th, 17:07 GMT
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

  1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
  2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  9. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
  10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
  11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
  12. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
  5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Merge the Wrecking Crew and VS. Wrecking Crew phases into list articles, Axis (ended February 24, 2022)
Do not consider usage of classic recurring themes as references to the game of origin, Swallow (ended March 9, 2022)
Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Enforce WCAG Level AA standards to mainspace and template content, PanchamBro (ended May 29, 2022)
Change how RPG enemy infoboxes classify role, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2022)
Trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters, Koopa con Carne (ended January 30, 2023)
Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Consider filenames as sources and create redirects, Axis (ended August 24, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)
Standardize the formatting of foreign and explanatory words and phrases in "Names in other languages" tables, Annalisa10 (ended February 7, 2024)
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Create The Cutting Room Floor link template, Bro Hammer (ended May 7, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split the various reissues of Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended April 22, 2022)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences, LinkTheLefty (ended January 14, 2023)
Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)
Remove the list of Super Smash Bros. series objects, Axis (ended May 10, 2023)
Merge Start Dash with Rocket Start, Koopa con Carne (ended August 17, 2023)
Use italics for the full title of the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass, Hewer (ended September 15, 2023)
Split Special Shot into separate articles by game, Technetium (ended September 30, 2023)
Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)
Decide which series certain Yoshi games are related to, GuntherBB (ended December 14, 2023)
Change the Super Mario 64 DS level section to include more specific character requirements, Altendo (ended December 20, 2023)
Replace "List of Game Over screens" and "'Game Over' as death" sections with a "History" section, DrippingYellow (ended December 20, 2023)
Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023)
Make major changes to the MarioWiki:Links page, PnnyCrygr (ended January 10, 2024)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge the ghost Bats and Mice from Luigi's Mansion to their respective organic counterparts from the later games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split Strobomb from Robomb, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split the NES and SNES releases of Wario's Woods, SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (ended March 27, 2024)
Merge Mii Brawler, Mii Swordfighter, and Mii Gunner to Mii, TheUndescribableGhost (ended March 28, 2024)
Merge Masterpieces to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U articles, Camwoodstock (ended March 31, 2024)
Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)
Rename Beanstalk to Vine, DrippingYellow (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Merge Stompybot 3000 with Colonel Pluck, DrippingYellow (ended May 4, 2024)
Merge Party Ball (item) with Party Ball, GuntherBayBee (ended May 5, 2024)

List of talk page proposals

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

Remove rule 4 of the talk page proposals

4. Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if each voting option has fewer than five votes.

...Why? Why are proposers given the right of closing their proposals based solely on the number of votes? What purpose does this serve when proposers already have the option of closing their proposal within the first six days? If a proposal hasn't received many votes, why is the solution to completely scrap it rather than try to promomte it? What situation would even exist that would require this rule to be invoked (less than five votes on all sides and more than six days have passed), and even then, why not let an admin close it if there's a valid reason for it? If there's no valid reason for closing the proposal, why let proposers close it at any moment they want? Why only five votes in the first place, and not some other arbitrary number? Why do talk page proposals even have a rule that isn't applied to regular proposals?

This rule is pointless in all circumstances and should be promptly scrapped.

Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: October 14, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended: October 21, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended: October 28, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Baby Luigi (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Yoshi the SSM (talk) So you want to remove it. Why haven't you? (it's basically rhetorical.) Per proposal.
  4. Toadette the Achiever (talk) No reasoning was provided for why the rule was added, and it's pointless anyways (no one uses it), so per proposal.
  5. Gabumon (talk) - As per general proposal rules, every proposer gets three days in which they may alter or remove proposals. That's already a sufficient window to realize if your proposal is sensible and you want to stick with it.
  6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
  7. NSY (talk) Ridiculous rule. Per all
  8. 7feetunder (talk) Per proposal.
  9. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Per all, especially Toadette the Achiever and Gabumon.
  10. Mario Kart DS Fan (talk) per
  11. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) I always found this rule very annoying. Per all.
  12. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per all.

Oppose

  1. Lcrossmk8 (talk) I think it's better to give the proposer complete control over the proposal, and this rule does just that.
  2. Camwood777 (talk) - I don't really see a point to remove it. If there's too few votes, it's usually a no quorum anyhow, so rather than just feebly wait, the proposer might just say "forget it" and close it.
  3. Chester Alan Arthur (talk) I don't really see any actual benefit to this it seems like doing something just to do it.
  4. Niiue (talk) Per all.
  5. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Per all. There just doesn't seem to be a point to removing it. Maybe I want to put a proposal no one cares about out of its misery?
  6. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) When the proposal passes/fails, a month of waiting is needed between proposals (rule #7). That means 6 weeks of total waiting (if rule #10 doesn't apply). If the proposer has a right to withdraw with less than five votes, rule #7 can be skipped, meaning a refreshed proposal can happen within 0-6 weeks. This can allow tweaks and maybe allowing the proposal to be proposed at a better time where more people are active.
  7. Chat Man (talk) Per all. It's entirely optional, if you don't like it, don't do it.
  8. Supermariofan67 (talk) Per all.
  9. Alex95 (talk) - Per all.

Comments

OK, can anyone tell me the difference between talk page proposals and regular proposals? I know that one type specializes in game-related information and that one type specializes in regular wiki-related stuff, but can anyone tell me which is which? I'd really like to know. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

Talk page proposals go on talk pages and usually only deal with a handful of pages or sometimes even just one page. Regular proposals go on this page and handle a broader amount of pages or other details that would directly affect policy. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 11:56, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

@Lcross: Can you elaborate on what you mean by "complete control"? Would you allow a proposer to make major changes to their proposal the day that it ends? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 11:56, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

@Camwood: Is there a point in keeping it around, then? And keep in mind that a proposal only needs four votes total to go into effect; in theory, a proposer could easily cancel a proposal simply because they don't like that a majority of users are voting for something that they don't want. That really doesn't seem fair to me. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 12:01, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

Usually, by the point they could cancel a proposal simply because people don't vote for something they want/people vote for something they don't want, they wouldn't be able to cancel the proposal by this since the consensus would be above that they could cancel the vote by. And if it were lower, there would still be a no quorum. Really, either way, not allowing this does nothing, and removing this just helps delay votes that have a pretty inevitable no quorum.
And before you bring up the "isn't 4 possibly enough votes to pass but they can still cancel?", don't worry. However, I think that's an entire other debacle that I think would be more appropriately addressed in another vote after this one, if this vote to remove rule 4 fails and any purpose in doing so isn't rendered moot by rule 4 simply not existing. ~Camwood777 (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
A proposal with 3 votes on one side and 4 votes on the other side would be subject to this rule, and that seems like an adequate amount of votes to reach a legitimate consensus. The rule's especially problematic with proposals that have multiple options, since that naturally thins out the number of votes. Also, who are you to say that a consensus is inevitable? New information can come in at any moment, which could easily lead to new votes or people switching their votes. At the very least, if the information comes in too late, the proposer can ask the admins to cancel it and they have a perfectly valid reason to do so. Cancelling proposals early just because you feel like it only stifles productive debate. In short, keeping this rule could easily cause more harm than good. 23:12, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

@TimeTurner: Thanks for the info. It was really helpful. As for "complete control", I'm saying that the proposer should be able to decide if he/she wants to remove it, and removing rule 4 would restrict them from doing that. If they realized immediately that the said action was done for a reason and that the proposal would go against the action, then they should remove the proposal. If you still don't understand, then do you remember my proposal about merging the Hot Monster article with the Red Monster article that completely failed? I thought they were the same thing, but I immediately learned they weren't. I decided to keep the proposal anyway, because I just wanted to see how it would turn out in the end. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

There's already a rule that allows you to cancel your proposal without a reason early on, especially with this recently passed proposal. If you learn "immediately" that your proposed change wasn't a good idea, then you're free to cancel it. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:35, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

@Chester: The danger is that this rule could be used to cancel a proposal solely because the proposer doesn't like the outcome, and not because they had any sort of legitimate reason. If they did, they can inform an admin and close it that way. This is not the kind of power that needs to be given to proposers. Besides, spring cleaning is always good; why bog down the list with a pointless rule? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:35, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

@Doc: What gives you the right to decide that nobody cares about your proposal? I'll reiterate that it only takes more than three votes for a proposal to pass, making it possible for you to cancel a proposal even if people are participating in it, but regardless, if nobody participates in your proposal and it ends in a no quorum, then the logical reason for that is because the proposed issue was too complex and wide-reaching or the proposal itself was confusing, and that's valuable information in and of itself. Besides, it's entirely possible to people to join in with new information at any point, and that could easily get the ball rolling. I'll also reiterate that it's possible for admins to close a proposal early if there's a valid reason for it; what are you doing, cancelling a proposal without a valid reason? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 09:20, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

The fact that it's been utterly ignored for 8-10 days? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

@Wildgoosespeeder: One, that rule doesn't apply to no quorum proposals, and two, the rule exists for a reason. What's the point of rule 7 if it's so easily circumvented? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:32, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

No quorum proposals is 3 or less votes total (rule #8), or if the three extensions on top of the one/two weeks and no margin of three was reached by the end (rule #11). I think rule #7 was for protections involving very active participation, not for any proposal, even proposals with little voting activity. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 16:13, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

@Chat Man: You called the rule optional. Rules are not something you can pick and choose from to follow. They are what you must try to follow as best as you can. I say that because we are all human. Sometimes we can't follow the rules. But in no wise it is optional. And if you don't like the rule, then why did you oppose? And you're perring other votes which have things you should read as well. Also, I am just trying to cover all points, but I will let you decide to change it or keep it the same. Red Yoshi in a construction hat walking Yoshi the SSM (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

Changes

Make "Bestiary" its own namespace

Sure, we have a namespace for galleries, but I don't see why we can't do the same for bestiaries. It's the same kind of "special" article that I would define galleries as as well. Therefore, I propose that we rename every instance of [XX] bestiary to Bestiary:[XX].

Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk)
Deadline: October 26, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Niiue (talk) Per proposal.
  4. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per proposal. Why not?
  5. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) This is (similar to?) one of the things Zeldawiki does that I think we should too.
  6. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all.
  7. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per all.
  8. Eldritchdraaks (talk) Switch sides again, Per Toadette's comment.

Oppose

  1. Tucayo (talk) - For galleries it made sense because most major articles had one (there are currently 319); for bestiaries, I don't see the point at all. There are 12 proper bestiaries, I don't think this warrants a namespace by any means.
  2. Time Turner (talk) Per Tucayo. I also don't see the benefit of this; it seems like more hassle then it's worth for little payoff when considering the few bestiaries on the page.
  3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Tucayo.
  4. Alex95 (talk) - Originally supported, but considering the number of bestiaries there are, per Tucayo.
  5. Lcrossmk8 (talk) I don't think we have enough pages of this thing to make it into a separate namespace. Per all.
  6. NSY (talk) Per my comment below and Tucayo.
  7. Ghost Jam (talk) Per all. I see what's trying to be done here, but it seems overly fiddly considering what is being effected, making this extra work for little reward.

Comments

I might just be a bit dumb, but I don't fully understand what this means or what the difference is. Could you give an example?--EldritchdraaksSig1.pngEldritchdraaksSig2.png 12:15, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
For example, Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga bestiary would become Bestiary:Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga if this were to pass. --A sprite of a Flame Chomp from New Super Mario Bros. Wii.TheFlameChomp (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
I can only see one problem with this. On every enemy page where the enemy template is placed, transcluding its info from the bestiary page, they look like this:
{{:Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga bestiary|transcludesection=Bowser|align=horizontal|image=[[File:BowserRoarSmallAni.gif]]}}
The bolded part is where we're going to get into some issues. It'll be a simple fix, but we'd have to change the link for EVERY page with an enemy template.--EldritchdraaksSig1.pngEldritchdraaksSig2.png 12:54, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
Sounds like bot work. Alex95sig1.pngAlex95sig2.png 12:56, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
Could we keep the current names as redirects until all of the transclusions are fixed?
Ultimate Mr. L without the emblem behind him (for my signature) Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 14:05, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
@Ultimate Mr. L: Isn't that a standard measure? @Alex95: That was my exact plan for fixing those pages. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 17:37, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

@Tucayo: "There's too little" is not an argument in and of itself. It's so that normal readers don't get confused into thinking it's an actual article. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 18:00, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

They are articles, though?? What makes them any different from quote pages, lists of badges, recipes, assist trophies, etc.? Bold + italics doesn't make it true. --TucayoSig.png™ The 'Shroom 22:01, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
Those are actual list articles. Bestiaries are not technically list articles; they are rather pages that are there to have individual sections be transcluded onto actual articles. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 22:07, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
But they are still articles by themselves. I truly fail to see the point here. --TucayoSig.png™ The 'Shroom 22:09, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
Again, why do you think that they're actual articles? They are not meant to be. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 08:25, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

If we gonna have them as separate namespaces I honestly think the category should expand to all list articles since they are the very similar to bestiaries. I honestly think having a separate namespace for just 12 pages for something very specific is inconsistent and unprofessional. NSY (talk)

@NSY: Again, bestiaries ARE NOT technically list articles; they are relevant sections of a page transcluded onto other articles, and having too few does not make too much of a difference. Also, could you please elaborate on the "inconsistency" argument? I understand it less so than Tucayo's arguments. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 15:10, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Make a new, separate "delete" template for pages with unique talk pages

As it stands, our current delete template urges for the talk page to be deleted as well, presumably assuming that it's from a move redirect. However, in the case of merges or outright page deletions, this is a bad thing, as it could cause the loss of why those events occurred in the first place. I propose we make a new, separate one for such eventualities. "deletenottalk" perhaps? I'm not sure if this belongs in "changes" or "new features," so I'm putting it here.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: October 29, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

  1. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) I would love to see a mock-up before I even consider supporting this.
  2. Time Turner (talk) Per Wildgoose and Mr. L in the comments.
  3. Alex95 (talk) - Per all.
  4. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Ultimate Mr. L in the comments.
  5. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per Wildgoosespeeder in the voting section, and Ultimate Mr. L in the comments.
  6. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per myself down there.

Comments

I think we should add an option to the current template that removes that text, something like: {{delete|-reason-|talk=no}} It may also be a good plan to delete that text altogether and just let the admins decide whether or not to delete the talk page. They know what they're doing.
Ultimate Mr. L without the emblem behind him (for my signature) Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 14:42, 22 October 2017 (EDT)

This is exactly what I was thinking. Mario (Gold) costume pose in Super Mario Maker Mario JC 22:13, 22 October 2017 (EDT)

@Time Turner: Guess what? I don't know how to make templates, so I can't make an example! But it would be like the current one, but replacing the "Please delete any accompanying talk pages as well" with "please do not delete the accompanying talk page. And @Ultimate Mr. L, the solution is not "Make your current template convoluted." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltick: Yes it is. That's why one user merged {{newsubject-section}} with {{new subject}}. (Well, you have to admit, it is a similar scenario.) Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 02:05, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
And it has confounded me multiple times, because it doesn't come with a use manual easy at hand, and I have to search for and hopefully find it within the nightmare that is our "templates" category for any direction at all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
If you don't know how to make a template, ask someone to help you. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask to see a mock-up of a new template. Also, I'm perring other people, why are you singling 'me out? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 07:21, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
Because I was half asleep (and quite frankly you're normally the one who gives me the most resistance it seems, so it's almost reflexive). I meant to @WildGooseSpeeder. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
You've used the excuse that you're tired on several other occasions. If your level of tiredness affects your editing to the point where your comments can be confused, don't edit when you're tired. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 07:45, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
I needed to answer the question though. And I re-read it several times. The problem was I had skimmed over the list while somewhat tired, so my backup checks didn't work. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
There was not an immediate need for you to respond to the opposition votes. Proposals last for a week; you have plenty of time to come back when you're not tired. I'm also going to caution you to actually do that, considering the number of tiredness-based hiccups you've had. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 08:07, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
This page is currently pending deletion.
Please do not delete the talk page.

Maybe we could change the outline color to green for quick differentiation. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

Move "Rewrite-expand" to "Incomplete"

I propose we should rename {{rewrite-expand}} for such eventualities. "{{incomplete}}" perhaps? I'm not sure if this belongs in "changes" or "new features," so I'm putting it here.

Perhaps this template should say:

This article is incomplete. You can help by rewriting and expanding it to include more information.

Proposer: Woodchuck (talk)
Deadline: October 31, 2017, 23:50 GMT

Support

Oppose

  1. Alex95 (talk) - That's just the text for {{stub}}. {{rewrite-expand}} is sort of a mix between stub and {{rewrite}}, the information needs to be rewritten, but also needs to be expanded. Saves having more than one template in a single section.
  2. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Curse you, edit conflicts! Anyway... I really don't see any benefit to this. {{rewrite-expand}} doesn't necessarily mean that the article is unfinished; more often, means that it doesn't go into enough detail. All this is doing is using more words and being more specific than the template should be. Per Alex95.
  3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Alex95.
  4. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) While I'd consider proposing the making of a new "To do" template like what TCRF has, we don't need to change the name of this one, particularly when what it says doesn't really appear to be any different.
  5. Mario jc (talk) Per Alex.
  6. Lcrossmk8 (talk) The {{rewrite-expand}} template is actually specific about how to fix the article other than filling in a bunch of nonsense or just stuff. Per all.
  7. Yoshi the SSM (talk) I thought this would get mass opposition. Anyway... Per all.

Comments

@Woodchuck You forgot to Support your own proposal.
Ultimate Mr. L without the emblem behind him (for my signature) Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 20:03, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Wow, you literally copied the last sentence of my proposal above. Just noting that.... Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Hey, hello, did you forget to support your own proposal or are you just doing that on purpose? Please don't take offense if you find this annoying, this is just a simple reminder, because I thought you forgot about it. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=2320868"